Posted
by
timothyon Friday May 04, 2012 @07:05PM
from the when-subtle-is-good dept.

bonch writes "Apple has quietly replaced the iPad 2's A5 with a smaller 32nm die that increases battery life by 15 to 30%. It's theorized that Apple is using the iPad 2 as a test bed for the new hardware platform, which shrinks the surface area of the A5 to 57% of the previous size."

I've calculated the size...57 % of A5, that makes for 158 x 112 mm (6,2 x 4,4 in). Mini indeed! But I don't know what ISO will say to Apple's attempt at redefining the ISO 216 sizes. I will have to write with smaller letters from now on.

I love my kindle fire, I often put it in my cargo pockets and take it around with me. I'd much prefer to have an iPad for the app support and they always seem to have a better touch interface on the iOS devices. I hope to see a 7" iPad soon!

I doubt it. Apple is all about user performance (for the envelope they target). You would probably see more real world dollars by keeping the stock battery and touting the 15-30% increase in battery life instead. 12 hour tablet? yes please!

A 57% die shrink is something any company would be happy to have - their costs go down as well. Also, as the main submission said, the power requirements are greatly reduced, which in Apple's case would be just as big a reason to upgrade - the 15-30% is nothing to scoff at.

Typically, if a company makes that sort of change, they also bundle in other changes - in this case, Apple could use a RAM that's die shrunk, as well as other newer or cheaper components.

You mean your XOOM has lied about its battery life for longer? Don't get me wrong, but my "10 hour" iPad made it across the atlantic and back, with 3 days in between, reading all the way on both flights (11 hours each), and doing some other stuff with it in between. That's because the "10 hours" is 10 hours of browsing, with a reasonably bright screen brightness, with WiFi on. Put it in flight mode, and turn the brightness down to read in the dark and it lasts for ages. By comparison, I've yet to see another tablet (the XOOM included), which by "12 hour battery" doesn't mean "we once managed to sneak out 11:31 by turning the backlight off, wifi off, and leaving it idle".

As reported in TFA, the iPad2 is extraordinarily power-efficient when watching video, using less power than merely idling on the home screen. Anandtech timed it at 13.3h continuous video play. And that is the original model; the die-shrunk version goes 15.7 hours.

They're further developing their A5 and ramping up production by introducing it first in an existing product.

Exactly. My first thought was that they will replace the CPU in all of their product line, and the iPad 2 was the first one that had run out of stock and thus required a new batch to be made. So rather than any tactical move to introduce it in the iPad 2 first, it was just the luck of the draw; the first cab off the rank.

It would make a more efficient production line if they didn't have to support 2 different die sizes of CPU. It is probably why they did this change quietly so that people didn't stop buyin

I think it was definitely a tactical move. A die shrink is not a trivial process, and there are always going to be hurdles and low-volume issues and so on as you work on it, so Apple opted to test and refine the process using the iPad 2. When the process is mature and all the bugs and yield issues are sorted then they may move it to the iPad 3 line. For now, it would be unwise of them to jump right into a 32nm CPU for a product that they just launched selling as fast as they can make them (especially since

Isn't the iPad3 based on the A6? I doubt that they're prepping the shrunk A5 for another platform - maybe they're targeting the iPhone and iPod Touch as well?

Die shrinks are more often than not cost reductions, although sometimes, they may be necessary for either improvements in power consumption or performance. I think this die shrink may have been used before in something else before the current A5 was quietly replaced. I doubt that Apple would introduce it in one of its flagship products w/o testing

And they didn't change mine... Not even quietly.Maybe if the leave the old big one behind, I can put it under my pillow tonight. Then, when the processor-ferry comes around, I will end up with some shiny coins as well!

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.

Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.

Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?

Read the article. Its not just a die shrink, but also a change in manufacturing (high-k + metal gate).

Page 4 of TFA states that the 30% was measured while gaming. Games typically put a high load on both the CPU and GPU; these are scenarios where the total power usage is high and therefore the screen and radios make up a smaller fraction of the power footprint.

The other reply to you pointed out that they changed the process a bit too.

But if you look at the benchmarks that were done, the biggest difference was running Infinity Blade II, which means heavy CPU and GPU usage. In that case, the CPU/CPU probably take up a sizable chunk of the system's power.

If you did a "sit on the home screen until the iPad shuts it's self off" test, I'd imagine you'd be right and the battery life wouldn't be that different.

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.

Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?

I'm fairly sure that if you remove the CPU entirely you'll see close to 100% power reduction...

that's not an issue. this is really more like an ipad2.1 - incremental upgrade. that sort of thing happens in tech.

What you say is true, but Apple does it far less than some other companies (and I say that as an Apple user). You don't see their laptop processor speeds climb slowly every couple of months, for example - unlike, say, Dell.

Funny thing is, a lot of Apple fans thought the transition to Intel chips would bring about exactly that sort of change; but it did not happen.

The smaller number of different models increases the liquidity of the used market, which is good for stabilizing prices, and also has an effect on depreciation. You can actually sell almost any 24 month old apple laptop for half what you paid for it. Can you do that with a dell? Or is your upgrade plan, "buy a new one and send us the old one and we won't charge you too much to recycle it."

The sad part is neither is the Macbook. It's a bloody computer and an obsolete one at that.

Pay 50% of the original value for something that likely has a completely dead battery which is not user replaceable? No Thanks. At least with an old Dell I can just slap in a new battery and it's otherwise still as good as it was when it came out.

The sad part is neither is the Macbook. It's a bloody computer and an obsolete one at that.

I still constantly hear and read this. I'd go as far and say ever since Jobs rejoined Apple and introduced OS X this isn't the case anymore.I'm a die hard nerd/geek with 13 years of Linux experience, and I love nothing more than a well-configured x86-Linux driven piece of hardware *and* ever since I stopped buying the most recent windows games - sometime back in 2001 or so - I allways go for the most bang for buck.

Why then is it that I'm typing this on a MB Air?

Quite frankly, because there is no alternative. It's Unix with most of the Bash & CLI toolstack preinstalled. It has a touchpad that for once isn't built by the techstandards of 1995 - i.e. doesn't suck like an industry-grade vacuum cleaner. It has a 64bit core 2 duo CPU and a battery life management built into the OS that was built by the exact same people that built the battery and the motherboard and everthing else inside it 1,3kg light aluminum enclosure.Ok, there are, as of now, Ultrabooks out there that don't come with MS tax and cost less with simular performance. But when I bought this one, after long and carefull consideration, there wasn't an alternative.A PC that doesn't even come close to the current cheapest Mac Mini in size, noise, ease of handling and performance costs upwards of 1000$ at least. The cheapest mac mini costs 600$. Even if I replace the HDD with an SSD it will still be no more expensive or even cheaper than a PC equivalent.

A different example: I recently got myself an HTC Flyer tablet - also after long and carefull consideration. The upsides were: Cheap (bargain offer), precisely the right size and no Apple AppStore / X-Code ADC lock-in. And it was the only one that could compete with Apple quality wise. Actually, i I find the HTC Flyer to have a more pristine enclosure than the iPads.Yet again, I'm a computer expert and have very specific considerations to make when buying such a device.The newest iPad comes at 479 Euros and is at least a generation ahead of everything else in the tablet world - if I were a mere consumer that would be a very attractive prospect and anyone would be hard pressed to find a better offer price wise.

Bottom line:Apple is loosing karma by the minute with a lot of experts, for the reasons we all know - but the legend that their hardware is overpriced is simply that: A legend. Within the spec-range they choose to deliver and cater to, they are, in fact, quite a good value. Denying that is just being silly.

Apple is loosing karma by the minute with a lot of experts, for the reasons we all know - but the legend that their hardware is overpriced is simply that: A legend. Within the spec-range they choose to deliver and cater to, they are, in fact, quite a good value. Denying that is just being silly.

Allow me to speak as one of the "silly" people.3 years ago my company got me a 13" Macbook for $1300 and my wife got a 14" Compaq with similar hardware (both C2D 2.1GHz) for $600. The Macbook was heavier than the larger-screen Compaq, more than twice the price and overall it was a much worse experience than my previous laptops so I returned it in just a couple of months.A bit over a year ago, my company got me a MacPro for 4500Euro (I was now in Europe). It would be over 5500 Euro if I had not bought and in

Even if you claim that the Macbook isn't overpriced (it is unless you start counting the shiny factor like ooooh aluminium casing etc) saying that a Mac retains 50% of its original value makes it LUDICROUSLY overpriced. After two years computers are effectively worthless regardless if they are ooooh so shiny.

Also I don't buy into the well made computer argument. All my computers whether they have been plastic or mag alloy have been bashed around. All of them including my 10 year old Dell still work just fin

Pay 50% of the original value for something that likely has a completely dead battery which is not user replaceable? No Thanks. At least with an old Dell I can just slap in a new battery and it's otherwise still as good as it was when it came out.

Apple went from a user replacable battery that lives through 300 charges to a non-user replacable battery that lives through 1000 charges and has a much better charge in the first place. After two years, my MacBook Pro battery is almost new.

Apart from that, if you can't replace a non-user replacable battery in a MacBook Pro yourself, what business do you have posting on Slashdot?

The smaller number of different models increases the liquidity of the used market, which is good for stabilizing prices, and also has an effect on depreciation. You can actually sell almost any 24 month old apple laptop for half what you paid for it.

Actually, a 2008 unibody macbook 13" (current models have "pro" moniker) still sells for ~$500-$750 on ebay [1]. I have one I bought new at the time for $1300... that's about 40 month old machine, and with OSX lion upgrades, modern SSD and memory upgrade it's as usable as a new one.

I'm not sure about the prices two years later, but four years later, my Dell is still going for a quarter of what I paid for it.

And half of a lot of money is still a lot of money. You could have just spent the half in the first place on a decent Dell that's spec'ed better. (If you ignore Velben-good, fake features like the wrought from a block of pure virgin aluminum, and polished by the tears of a unicorn.)

All that said, you are right, the tight control over the models does help the secondary market.

Because this was for testing purposes? They aren't going to try a newly ramped-up process on what is a flagship product that has higher manufacturing costs and possibly risk lots of returns. They'll do it on the lower priced version that would be less costly if errors did pop up.

Because this was for testing purposes? They aren't going to try a newly ramped-up process on what is a flagship product that has higher manufacturing costs and possibly risk lots of returns. They'll do it on the lower priced version that would be less costly if errors did pop up.

When this story came out first, it was reported that Apple moved the iPad 2 from a single core chip to a chip that is actual dual core with die shrink, but only one core used. That's what you would do if you want to "practice" the new process - the process might not be quite good enough yet to give enough yield for dual core chips, but enough for single core, and if they can't get enough they can still use the old chip (which is another good reason not to advertise the new chip).

The "quiet" nature of this change is likely to avoid attracting lawsuits from early adopters of iPad 2.0 that bought a (now) inferior product for more money.

That kind of lawsuit would have no merit whatsoever. However, a very good reason is that there is plenty of stock out there with the older processor. So since Apple doesn't tell anyone about the newer processor, you get either exactly what you paid for, or you get something better. You can't complain then. Same as people buying refurbished Macs sometimes get a bigger hard drive or more RAM than they paid for.

And just like most self-righteous jerks, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Check again, I never said the discontinued the iPad 2. I know they never discontinued the Wi-Fi version, but I thought they had discontinued the 3G versions. I was wrong, caught my own mistake, and posted a correction.

And you have no clue who I am, or what I know. And you come back with that BS. Stick your attitude.

If they're continuing to update the "old" iPad well after the "new" iPad came out, it seems logical to conclude that they intend to maintain two lines of iPads.

I can see some logic to this - the iPad 2 is becoming their "low-end" tablet, and the iPad 3 is becoming their "high-end" tablet. You'll note that the 32GB and 64GB iPad 2s were discontinued, but the 16GB (aka cheapest) models are still made. Most likely they'll keep trying to chip down the price of the iPad 2 to make it more competitive with the cheaper Android tablets, while producing higher-spec (and higher-price) iPad 3 models.

There's probably going to be some brand-shuffling going on. Most likely they'll rename them to "iPad" and "iPad Pro", mirroring their old MacBook / MacBook Pro branding.

They're not. That would be confusing for customers, and Apple has always loved simplicity.

This is the way of the electronics world. This kind of thing is always going on, it's just Apple is watched so closely, that when a an internal model number changes it becomes news and someone benchmarked it.

There were at least 2 or 3 PSPs before the Slim. The XBox 360 had 3 or 4 models before the slim. There were also multiple versions of the PS3 and PS2 before their redesigns. Other than often coinciding with the game bundles changing or a price drop, the manufacturers don't tend to make a big deal of this.

As time goes on, it becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture on a smaller process. This allows combining chips, cutting back on heat control, etc; all making the units cheaper to produce. This always reduces power draw, the difference is since this is a piece of portable electronics (and they didn't reduce the battery size), the battery life increased.

You bring up some valid facts, but you fail to make any valid conclusions:

1) They *already* released the "successor" product. This would be like Sony releasing the PS4, then a few months later releasing a new model of the PS3. If you treat the products as strict successors, it makes no sense - why continue not just to manufacture obsolete hardware, but continue engineering work on it?

2) "Two models" is simple enough to not confuse even Apple users, and in fact aligns much better with Apple's other product l

Well this is not a new model. This is just a die shrinkage. Maybe Samsung wanted to shut down it's 45nm fab to make way for an even more advanced fab?

But yes, this is in line with what apple has done with the iPhone. The previous model is sold as the bargain model. I wouldn't call it a different line. After the 4th generation iPod comes out, the 3rd generation iPad will take it's place as the value tablet.

This would be like Sony releasing the PS4, then a few months later releasing a new model of the PS3. If you treat the products as strict successors, it makes no sense - why continue not just to manufacture obsolete hardware, but continue engineering work on it?

Your point is not lost, but Sony did exactly that with new PS2 models with significant engineering advancements just prior to and long after the November 2006 release of the PS3 :

In 2006, Sony released new hardware revisions (V15, model numbers SCPH-77001a and SCPH-77001b). It was first released in Japan on September 15, 2006, including the Silver edition. After its release in Japan, it was then released in North America, Europe and other parts of the world. The new revision uses [...]

In July 2007, Sony started shipping a revision of the slimline PlayStation 2 (SCPH-79000) featuring a reduced weight of 600 grams compared to 900 grams of the SCPH-77001 (with Expansion Bay), achieved through a reduction in parts. The unit also uses a smaller motherboard as well as a custom ASIC which houses the Emotion Engine, Graphics Synthesizer, and the RDRAM. The AC adaptor's weight was also reduced to 250 grams from the 350 grams in the previous revision.

Another refinement of the slimline PlayStation 2 (SCPH-90000) was released in Japan on November 22, 2007, As well some cosmetic changes, the design of the hardware has been overhauled, incorporating the power supply into the console itself; this also reduces the total weight to 720 grams (25 oz). SCPH-90000 series consoles manufactured after the third quarter of 2008 (indicated by date code 8C) incorporate a revised BIOS, which disables an exploit present in all older models that allowed homebrew applications to be launched from a memory card.

(Wikipedia)

Also... and just IMHO, the things Sony does almost never seem to make any great sense... perhaps Sony is not the best example of what companies do or should do.

Yes - at a time when the PS3 was literally being outsold by every other console on the market, including its predecessor. The Wii was outselling it four-to-one, and the 360 was peaking at three-to-one. Even the preceding PS2 was often outselling it *before* the new model.

Remember, back in '07, the PS3 showed every sign of dying, while even to this day the PS2 is the best-selling console of all time. Many were speculating that Sony would (or at the very least should) discontinue the PS3, cutting their losses

There's probably going to be some brand-shuffling going on. Most likely they'll rename them to "iPad" and "iPad Pro"...

It amazes me how geeks can completely misunderstand how the most successful tech company in the world operates. I find it even more baffling when most of the comments in the thread clearly explain what is going on.

If they're continuing to update the "old" iPad well after the "new" iPad came out, it seems logical to conclude that they intend to maintain two lines of iPads.

Not likely.

Apple's probably using hte iPad 2 as a production test platform. One that is relatively unimportant other than price point. The test here is a new fabrication process - things can go horrendously wrong still (poor yields, dies after 2 months, etc). Given the new iPad probably outsells the iPad 2 by a significant margin (I'd be surprised if

obviously, since jobs death they are working with a limited supply of magic. until an entire new generation of unicorns can be grown and harvested, there simply isn't enough to fill the old full sized CPUs.

bonch [slashdot.org] is a professional 'social marketing influencer' who is paid to post stories which promote Apple and slander their competitors.

Here are some of the shill's most recent submissions:

Apple Quietly Updates iPad 2's Processor

Google Faces FTC Fine For Safari Privacy Breach

NY Times: EU May Reopen Google Street View Inquiry

Google Supervisors Knew About Wi-Fi Data Harvesting

FTC Escalates Antitrust Investigation Against Google

Nintendo Hurt By New Rivals

Nintendo Reports First Ever Operating Loss

GPL Use Declining Faster Than Ever

iPhone Tops Sales Charts Of U.S. Carriers

iPad 3 Confirmed To Have 2048x1536 Screen Resolution

Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing

Google Begins Country-Specific Blog Censorship

Why Android Isn't Gaining On Apple In The Enterpri

Android Malware May Have Infected 5 Million Users

Apple Beats Android In U.S. Marketshare

Apple Reports Record-Breaking Quarter Results

In the words of a paid commenter, Apple is breaking records and 'clarifying' its self to Authors, whilst including incredible new technology in its' tablets. Meanwhile, Google is being investigated by multiple governments, censoring, is full of viruses, and losing market share, Nintendo is failing when compared to the iPhone, and Free Software is a dying corpse that should be abandoned in favor of iPad apps.

Gee, I didn't know that Apple had to pay for any press. After all, even PC Magazine seems to have more Apple articles these days than Microsoft articles. I think you're just jealous. Not everything that I submit gets posted, either. I'm over it already.

I assume you were also paid for your post, since you are so persistent in your attacks.

You know what? I don't care if you or Bonch made more/any money. Why should I care? All I care about is the quality of information presented, obviously many people are paid along the chain, after all the sites with the links are paid somehow also.

I especially do not care on Slashdot, where I can rely on comments to quickly bubble up a new link if there is a better/contrary view on the information presented.

According to Wikipedia:A journalist collects and distributes news and other information.So, it seems you call yourself journalist.

On the other hand a spammer pretty much fits the same definition.

There are lots of journalists that specialize and only report on a certain type of news. There are journalists that specialize on the automotive industry or politics or finance or technology.

The tech industry is hurting so there's negative stories about tech companies, apple is one of the only tech companies doing well so there's a bunch of positive stories about apple. If it was 15 years ago the situation would be flipped and we'd here people complaining about conspiracies AGAINST apple.

Not that there aren't paid shills but I think in this case it's unlikely that bonch is one. He's posted plenty of stories that aren't just pro-Apple/anti-Apple's competition. Sure he has a focus but that's probably just journalistic specialization. Now if he started seriously spinning Apple's failures in a positive light or the competition's successes in a negative light then you'd have some meat for your theories.

Considering this is/. and nobody actually writes any of these stories (except for the occasional self-promoter/slashvertisement), all he really has to do to qualify as a shill is to submit others' stories with such a bias.

E.g. if he submits plenty of Google stories, but all of them are negative, while there've been a ton of positive news coming out of Google at the same time, that's sufficient to qualify as an anti-Google shill.

In this case, this particular submitted appears to be primarily submitting stor

cool, here is a quick primer on journalism. Basically, journalists at real newspapers are 'at war' with the ad people. The New York Times and other august institutions have strict editorial firewalls between journalists and business. Each side thinks the other is trying to drive their institution into the ground and doesn't understand the whole mission of the organization. As a journalist, you should be thinking that companies are trying to ruin you by spending money on your opinion. You should buy tes